- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 16:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
DragonLords
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- DragonLords ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lacks notability, one review in a specialized magazine isn't enough. No obvious redirect target. Fram ( talk) 09:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 09:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 09:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 09:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 11:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- The article by Gary G. is one good RS. I'm not seeing another reliable source that is more than a passing mention. I'd love to see this kept, so ping me if you find something. Hobit ( talk) 22:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per additions by Guiness and Daranios, but I grant that the best coverage is in niche sources of questionable standing. As an ATD, merging this to the Redfox (comics) article would be preferable to deletion, as Redfox does appear to be more notable than the fanzine in which it originated. Jclemens ( talk) 07:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I've added more information, and another contemporary review. Unfortunately it is difficult to find contemporary sources to describe the UK fanzine scene of the late 1970s. Before the advent of White Dwarf, there were no professional games magazines published in the UK, and early players of Dungeons & Dragons and Traveller relied upon fanzines for new and original material. Circulation of the most popular such as DragonLords was several thousand per issue. However, difficult to find the sources to confirm this -- print media didn't know about the games world back then. Guinness323 ( talk) 07:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- keep That got better in a hurry. Nice work folks! Hobit ( talk) 13:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete or merge to White Dwarf. The quasi-integrality of the sources are specialized magazines, self-published media, passing mentions or interviews. WP:V is great, but it's notability that's at stake here. And it's clearly lacking. Pilaz ( talk) 17:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- The only source that is
independent, reliable (as SME), and in-depth is Gary Gygax's. The rest isn't, as far as I can tell. Pilaz ( talk) 19:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)- Now that I think about it: is the co-creator of Dungeons and Dragons really an independent source on Dungeons and Dragons fan magazines? Pilaz ( talk) 20:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- The only source that is
- Keep At the time of the nomination, there was only one review in a secondary source. With the additions based on more secondary sources we are now in my view beyond the requirements of WP:WHYN. I don't consider the fact that a greater part of those are specialized magazines a problem, because Wikipedia is a general and specialized encylopedia - that's the beauty of it. Daranios ( talk) 19:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - multiple, independent RS reviews; a clear GNG pass. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per improvement of article and analysis of sources by users above. BOZ ( talk) 19:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 16:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
DragonLords
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- DragonLords ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lacks notability, one review in a specialized magazine isn't enough. No obvious redirect target. Fram ( talk) 09:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 09:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 09:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 09:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 11:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- The article by Gary G. is one good RS. I'm not seeing another reliable source that is more than a passing mention. I'd love to see this kept, so ping me if you find something. Hobit ( talk) 22:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per additions by Guiness and Daranios, but I grant that the best coverage is in niche sources of questionable standing. As an ATD, merging this to the Redfox (comics) article would be preferable to deletion, as Redfox does appear to be more notable than the fanzine in which it originated. Jclemens ( talk) 07:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I've added more information, and another contemporary review. Unfortunately it is difficult to find contemporary sources to describe the UK fanzine scene of the late 1970s. Before the advent of White Dwarf, there were no professional games magazines published in the UK, and early players of Dungeons & Dragons and Traveller relied upon fanzines for new and original material. Circulation of the most popular such as DragonLords was several thousand per issue. However, difficult to find the sources to confirm this -- print media didn't know about the games world back then. Guinness323 ( talk) 07:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- keep That got better in a hurry. Nice work folks! Hobit ( talk) 13:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete or merge to White Dwarf. The quasi-integrality of the sources are specialized magazines, self-published media, passing mentions or interviews. WP:V is great, but it's notability that's at stake here. And it's clearly lacking. Pilaz ( talk) 17:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- The only source that is
independent, reliable (as SME), and in-depth is Gary Gygax's. The rest isn't, as far as I can tell. Pilaz ( talk) 19:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)- Now that I think about it: is the co-creator of Dungeons and Dragons really an independent source on Dungeons and Dragons fan magazines? Pilaz ( talk) 20:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- The only source that is
- Keep At the time of the nomination, there was only one review in a secondary source. With the additions based on more secondary sources we are now in my view beyond the requirements of WP:WHYN. I don't consider the fact that a greater part of those are specialized magazines a problem, because Wikipedia is a general and specialized encylopedia - that's the beauty of it. Daranios ( talk) 19:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - multiple, independent RS reviews; a clear GNG pass. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per improvement of article and analysis of sources by users above. BOZ ( talk) 19:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.